Definition of a Christian

[ErikJohnson]

Spin-off thread from my introductory post (first of potentially several). The original was here, see post # 31: http://www.lds.net/forums/introduce-yourself/17029-dont-hate-me-lds-turned-christian-protestant.html

In it, a poster defined a Christian as, “Persons who believe in Jesus and accept him as their personal savior.” While there’s certainly nothing wrong with such language—I don’t think the definition goes far enough. A little Church history to show why I think this—

In the 4th Century, a contention arose in Christianity. Certain people began to contend that Jesus was the Son of God and therefore like any son—he must have had a beginning. They insisted Jesus was a created being and therefore was not eternally God. This is referred to as the “Arian Controversy” (you can look it up on Wikipedia, if you’d like to know more).

From this example of heresy in the early Church—you can see that a person may say that he/she believes Jesus is the Son of God, and yet does not believe Jesus is the eternal God, as Christians do. Such persons use Biblical language—but they aren’t true Christians, because they don’t recognize Jesus for who He really is (as revealed by God in Scripture). I’ll offer what I think is a better definition, one that precludes the confusion introduced by the Arians: A Christian is someone who worships Jesus as the eternal God.

Please critique my definition. If you think you have a better one, submit it for my critique and that of other posters.

--Erik

[Maxel]

I can feel the vibes of good intentions emanating from your post, but I just don't agree with it.

I've never believed that a 'true Christian' is one who retains belief, while on this earthly state, in the correct metaphysical system of beliefs we call religion.

If I understand the spirit of what you're saying to be correct, I somewhat agree with your simple definition of a Christian as 'someone who worships Jesus as the eternal God'. However, judging by your preceding example of the Arian Controversy, I fear you may be putting more into those words than I am reading.

For example: what does it mean to be eternal? I believe I know your definition- never having a beginning or end. However, the ancient Hebrews believed time to exist in certain periods, and that the scriptural 'eternity' did in fact have a beginning and end, although humans could not measure it. That is to say, there was a time before the scriptural eternity, and there will be a time after the scriptural eternity. My problem with your definition is that, for its rigidness, it is far too simplistic. If you want to start laying down the exact definitions of Christianity so that it precludes all heresies, you would have to write something akin to the ancient Creeds.

Another point: if one can use Biblical language incorrectly and not qualify as Christian, what hope do they have who never have read the Bible before, yet still are touched by the Light of Christ and are moved to do good to their fellow man 'all their days'? Obviously they are not Christian in that they are not familiar with the doctrine of Jesus Christ, but they can still live by the spirit of Christ- and the spirit of Christ proves the salvation of mankind. Are these poor souls, then, doomed to a status of non-Christianity based on their metaphysical beliefs?

On the same token, will a man who believes in the correct religious beliefs of Christ, yet who is degenerate, a liar and adulterer, be called by the name of Christ? Surely not, for he disregards the spirit in favor for the philosophy, which he then fails to live by.

Finally, what is the import of being called a Christian? Different uses of the word denote different meanings: if you want to separate people based on religions, than a Christian is generally anyone who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is divine, was God incarnate, and will save His people. If you want to throw around words and exclude others from your exclusive club, then you can call a Christian anyone who prescribes solely to your own list of doctrines. Finally, if you want to separate people based on whether they are actually living the kind of life that Christ died to teach us, are making use of the atonement that He preformed while on this earth, and who will actually be saved in the Kingdom of Heaven... then, you can't. Such things are known only to God and sometimes to the person themselves.

[ErikJohnson]

Hi Maxel--

Appreciate the critique, but I find your post curious. You seem to be suggesting that it's not worthwhile attempting to define the word Christian. I find that surprising because these days many LDS take real offense when told their church is not Christian. But you seem to indicate the word has no practical meaning or application, and any attempts to define it only serve to reveal the agenda of the person offering the definition. If that were so, then presumably LDS wouldn't care one way or the other. Obviously this is not the case. LDS clearly think the word means something.

But perhaps I've misunderstood you. Do you have a definition for the word Christian that you think is an accurate reflection of either your own belief or of LDS belief (or both)?

Regarding your point about those who never had access to the Bible, I think God has the means to bring anyone to a knowledge of Christ. He can appear in dreams, even in the final moments of life. I definitely wouldn't see this as an argument against attempting a definition.

--Erik

[Maxel]

Hi Maxel--

Appreciate the critique, but I find your post curious. You seem to be suggesting that it's not worthwhile attempting to define the word Christian. I find that surprising because these days many LDS take real offense when told their church is not Christian. But you seem to indicate the word has no practical meaning or application, and any attempts to define it only serve to reveal the agenda of the person offering the definition. If that were so, then presumably LDS wouldn't care one way or the other. Obviously this is not the case. LDS clearly think the word means something.

Good point, let me elaborate. In my post I was attempting to offer no real definition of 'Christian', but to illustrate the difficulty in labeling one as 'Christian' or 'un-Christian'. You are correct that attempting a definition serves to 'reveal the agenda of the person offering the definition'. However, that is the very reason I believe the Church proper, and I myself, are adamant in proclaiming that we are Christians.

When we look at the many nuances applied to the word 'Christian' that society has applied to it over the years, and the fact that the uninformed often label 'Christians' as one large group, and the fact that Christ has commanded us to 'take His name upon us', it is imperative that the world see us Mormons as Christians and that we act like the disciples of Christ that the name implies. The problem arises when representatives of the main body of Christianity attempt to exclude us from the Christian category over irrelevant details (such as us not accepting the ancient Creeds) or made-up facts (such as that we don't really worship Christ).

The tone of my post is in response to yours: I purposely gave no definition of 'Christian' but instead pointed to the problem of defining a 'Christian' if one approaches it as an exercise in labeling some with doctrinal correctness, and others without. I believe, and I believe scripture supports me here, that when we begin to separate ourselves according to doctrinal nuances, we lose the spirit of Christ entirely.

Do you have a definition for the word Christian that you think is an accurate reflection of either your own belief or of LDS belief (or both)?

Now that I've explained my problem with defining one's Christianity by their doctrinal beliefs, I would say a Christian is anyone who truly worships Christ for who Christ truly is.

That's ambiguous on purpose, and totally useless in terms of classification (unless you're God). I don't think that's how the LDS Church would define it. I believe the prophet would say a Christian is anyone who worships Christ as Savior and God. I believe a statement such as that leaves room for degrees of Christianity, not black-and-white inclusion or exclusion.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Maxel
Clarification

[NeuroTypical]

Hey Erik,

I believe Jehovah and Elohim are different people. I believe that Jesus is the only begotten of the Father, by which I mean Jesus did not exist before the Father begat him. I believe that not only is Jesus my brother, but He is also shares the relationship of brother to Lucifer, as both are children of God.

Am I Christian?

[LittleWyvern]

To me, too often the word "Christian" (as a religion classification term) is defined to be "believes in mainstream Christian (as a set of teachings term) teachings." While you've proven the historical importance of the above definition, I don't see how this has significance today. We have a term for that now: "mainstream Christianity." I may be biased, but I doubt many LDS church members would consider themselves mainstream in any way, but still consider themselves Christian due to their strong relationship with Christ.

[pam]

May I refer you to a thread we have had on this subject before. Many expressed their thoughts on being called a Christian.

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/15366-i-dont-want-christian.html

[Elgama]

as I am not Christian feel free to ignore what I say lol

But for me it is inappropriate for anyone to say another is NOT Christian, to do so places you above God, the only people that can determine a true follower of Christ are the person and Christ.

Its a big reason why I do not want to be Christian it sickens me when people take a role upon themselves that isn't theirs to have. The definition of a Christian for me should not be complicated it is a relationship wit God in which the person worshipping produces forth good fruits, patience and peace as a result of that relationship, because there is ultimately only one God we worship. Interestingly I do not think going around telling someone they else they are not Christian is a good fruit and I think its close to idolatry in behaviour because its placing your own views first. The moment someone says that you see the spirit of contention come into their eyes and the spirit of Christ is lost from their countenance.

It was seeing people do that, that turned me away from Christianity. It has made saying I am Christian offensive to me, because Christ is not about the spirit of contention.

-Charley

Edited January 26, 2009 by Elgama

[Elgama]

this is what I posted on the thread Pam quoted

OK this entirely my view and I appreciate having left Christianity behind I am probably not entitled to it or even close - but I do feel that anyone shoud be able to say I am Christian then it be left upto Christ to judge the truth of it. Personally I think it should be about that connection a person has with their Saviour and it should be for no human to judge.

There are plenty Prodestant and Catholic who Christ will accept and just as many he will reject - it should be about the fruits and not the label And there are Non Trinitarian Christians I grew up with a very old chapel around the corner from me. I recently found out I had an ancester that may have been one (it was church next to his house). I had a Great Uncle who used to say we would be surprised about who Christ agreed was really Christian - I agree same goes for us as LDS

I think this is why I am not Christian because the word implies a complete religion rather than the personal desire of a person to follow Christ and the subsequent relationship with Christ. It does not identify you as a follower of Christ merely a member of a religion of which I do not want to be a part of

-Charley

[Palerider]

Here in the Bible belt......All the Baptists tell me I am not Christian.....and the tone they use is wonderful....you can feel the love.

[Hemidakota]

Here in the Bible belt......All the Baptists tell me I am not Christian.....and the tone they use is wonderful....you can feel the love.

Hmm...how many of those 'claimed' worshipers truly seen the Savior?

[Faded]

Spin-off thread from my introductory post (first of potentially several). The original was here, see post # 31: http://www.lds.net/forums/introduce-yourself/17029-dont-hate-me-lds-turned-christian-protestant.html

In it, a poster defined a Christian as, “Persons who believe in Jesus and accept him as their personal savior.” While there’s certainly nothing wrong with such language—I don’t think the definition goes far enough. A little Church history to show why I think this—

In the 4th Century, a contention arose in Christianity. Certain people began to contend that Jesus was the Son of God and therefore like any son—he must have had a beginning. They insisted Jesus was a created being and therefore was not eternally God. This is referred to as the “Arian Controversy” (you can look it up on Wikipedia, if you’d like to know more).

From this example of heresy in the early Church—you can see that a person may say that he/she believes Jesus is the Son of God, and yet does not believe Jesus is the eternal God, as Christians do. Such persons use Biblical language—but they aren’t true Christians, because they don’t recognize Jesus for who He really is (as revealed by God in Scripture). I’ll offer what I think is a better definition, one that precludes the confusion introduced by the Arians: A Christian is someone who worships Jesus as the eternal God.

Please critique my definition. If you think you have a better one, submit it for my critique and that of other posters.

--Erik

The first question you have to ask is this: Did the Council of Nicea have the direct revelation from God to solve the dispute over the nature of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost? If they did not, then their conclusions are nothing more and nothing less than politics. There are some pious accounts that imply something like that did occur -- Christ walking in wearing golden armor and pronouncing his will to them -- but even the most ardent Catholic scholar will admit that no such thing actually happened.

The problems I see with the Council of Nicea:

1.) A non-believer Roman Emperor -- Constantine -- called for the council. How can a non-Christian have a right to define a religion that he has not accepted?

2.) The supporters of Arius and the supporters of Athanasius were drawing their conclusions from the same sacred writings. The believers in the two viewpoints were very close to equal in numbers. There was a lot of "Bible-bashing" between the two camps. Both believed the Scriptures supported their own viewpoint.

3.) The Council was getting nowhere. They debated endlessly and nobody was really winning the argument. This is nothing new and it's still true today -- the Bible can be used to support both viewpoints.

4.) The heathen non-Christian Emperor Constantine got fed up with the lack of progress and intervened in favor of Athanasius' side of the argument. He laid down the law, said what was what, and established the precedent that the Arianist view of three separate beings was heresy and that the Trinitarian doctrine is the correct one.

5.) This would mean that the will of God was communicated through a man who had not yet even accepted Christianity. He was still a practicing believer in Roman pagan religions. So to say that God spoke through him is a HUGE stretch, in my opinion.

6.) A year before he died, Constantine accepted baptism. He was baptised by an Arian Christian. It seems to me that the "instrument of God in establishing the Trinitarian Doctrine as absolute truth" didn't much care one way or the other on the issue. Why else would he be baptised by a man he had been instrumental in defining as a "heretic"?

The biggest problem I have with the way that so many Christian religions casually throw around the statement, "Mormons aren't Christians" is that they are intentionally misleading and deceiving people.

By just throwing that statement out there, they are leaving the uneducated listener to draw their own conclusions. It also amounts to childish name-calling. They throw out words like "Cult" and "Heretics" and say that Mormons are going to hell for their false beliefs. Christian religions seem to be able to coexist in spite of a lot of differences of opinion -- but they exempt the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from such tollerance. In the majority of cases, Christians stop acting like Christians when it involves the Mormons. Why? Why do these supposedly good and decent people go out of their way to demonize the LDS faith?

I think I can easily offer a much better definition of the word "Christian."

Christian: Individual who believes in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and seeks to live their life accordingly.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Faded

[prisonchaplain]

I meant to post this a day or so ago, but had 'puter problems.

A traditional evangelical explanation of How to Become a Christian (this appears on my denomination's magazine, and in a variety of tracts):

A. ADMIT you are a sinner. (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:8)

B. BELIEVE Jesus can save you from your sins. (John 3:16, 1 John 1:9)

C. CONFESS your sins to God. (1 John 1:9)

Some would add:

D. DISCIPLESHIP: grow in your relationship with Jesus through the spiritual disciplines of church attendance, Bible study, prayer, fasting, tithes and offerings, service, and in open sharing of your faith with nonbelievers.

I believe it was George Barna who in the last couple of years came out with a study that suggested roughly 40% of LDS would qualify as "born again," based upon traditional evangelical definitions. Now, I would guess many LDS would balk at the low-ball #, while many evangelicals would find it inflated. Throw into this mix the 60% inactive rate I've heard put out here, as well as the reality that many who "attend" evangelical churches are also not truly born again, and this string becomes highly relevent.

IMHO:

1. Beliefs matter. Doctrine counts. However, how wrong can one be about God and still be okay? No easy answers. However, the longer one is in relationship with Jesus the more close they should come to truth. So, if that one's church is "wrong" on many teachings, wouldn't the Holy Spirit draw them away? NO easy answers. That's why I neither condemn nor affirm those who hold teachings I disagree with. I might express conerns, and intimate that they are serious, but this is thin ice. Some of my fundamentalist Christian bretheren are surely convinced that I, a pentecostal preacher, am demonized, and am leading my parishioners into demonic experiences. I fully expect to correct those misconceptions on the other side of the veil. :-)

[FunkyTown]

I meant to post this a day or so ago, but had 'puter problems.

A traditional evangelical explanation of How to Become a Christian (this appears on my denomination's magazine, and in a variety of tracts):

A. ADMIT you are a sinner. (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:8)

B. BELIEVE Jesus can save you from your sins. (John 3:16, 1 John 1:9)

C. CONFESS your sins to God. (1 John 1:9)

Some would add:

D. DISCIPLESHIP: grow in your relationship with Jesus through the spiritual disciplines of church attendance, Bible study, prayer, fasting, tithes and offerings, service, and in open sharing of your faith with nonbelievers.

I believe it was George Barna who in the last couple of years came out with a study that suggested roughly 40% of LDS would qualify as "born again," based upon traditional evangelical definitions. Now, I would guess many LDS would balk at the low-ball #, while many evangelicals would find it inflated. Throw into this mix the 60% inactive rate I've heard put out here, as well as the reality that many who "attend" evangelical churches are also not truly born again, and this string becomes highly relevent.

IMHO:

1. Beliefs matter. Doctrine counts. However, how wrong can one be about God and still be okay? No easy answers. However, the longer one is in relationship with Jesus the more close they should come to truth. So, if that one's church is "wrong" on many teachings, wouldn't the Holy Spirit draw them away? NO easy answers. That's why I neither condemn nor affirm those who hold teachings I disagree with. I might express conerns, and intimate that they are serious, but this is thin ice. Some of my fundamentalist Christian bretheren are surely convinced that I, a pentecostal preacher, am demonized, and am leading my parishioners into demonic experiences. I fully expect to correct those misconceptions on the other side of the veil. :-)

I find myself agreeing with almost everything you say, PC.

[NeuroTypical]

A. ADMIT you are a sinner.

B. BELIEVE Jesus can save you from your sins.

C. CONFESS your sins to God.

Some would add:

D. DISCIPLESHIP:

Not very far off from the LDS "First Principles and Ordinances" (I won't cite so much scripture, it's there if anyone wants it):

1. FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ

2. REPENTENCE: maybe just to God, maybe to others as well. We figure restitution (where possible) is a part of the repentence process.

3. BAPTISM: By immersion for the remission of sins, a symbolic event that marks someone officially joining the church.

4. LAYING ON HANDS FOR GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST

We use Acts 2:38 for the last 3.

IMHO:

1. Beliefs matter. Doctrine counts. However, how wrong can one be about God and still be okay? No easy answers. However, the longer one is in relationship with Jesus the more close they should come to truth. So, if that one's church is "wrong" on many teachings, wouldn't the Holy Spirit draw them away? NO easy answers.

A very charitable description of a very important issue, PC. You get my vote for the "1 Cor 13-est guy of the week" award! :)

LM

[prisonchaplain]

The problems I see with the Council of Nicea:

1.) A non-believer Roman Emperor -- Constantine -- called for the council. How can a non-Christian have a right to define a religion that he has not accepted?

It is indeed debated whether Constantine's conversion was genuine. However, even if not, yes God can use anyone to bring about his will. He hardened Pharoah's heart, He spoke to a prophet of his using a donkey, He commanded Peter to eat nonkosher meats (thus confirming his mission Cornelius' household). So, yes, God could use a hypocritical king to convene a Council to clarify orthodoxy vs. heresy.

2.) The supporters of Arius and the supporters of Athanasius were drawing their conclusions from the same sacred writings. The believers in the two viewpoints were very close to equal in numbers. There was a lot of "Bible-bashing" between the two camps. Both believed the Scriptures supported their own viewpoint.

Yes people read their Bibles and come to different conclusions on doctrines. And, the bottom line is that one is right and the other is wrong. BTW, this happens with the BoM too...Goodness, even the Word of Wisdom. Your church avoid much of the differing opinions by defining who is authorized to give the final word. In a sense, most churches are the same--including that Council at Nicea.

3.) The Council was getting nowhere. The debated endlessly and nobody was really winning the argument. This is nothing new and it's still true today -- the Bible can be used to support both viewpoints.

IMHO, LDS analysis of the Council at Nicea must, as a matter of doctrine, be negative. I do not doubt that serious scholarly and academic effort has gone into these bad reports. However, your teachings do not allow for the Council to have been ordained of God. In fairness, neither do Catholic and Trinitarian churches have the ability to be objective about it. In the end, the Council is much like accounts of Joseph Smith's visions. Either they/he heard from God, or not.

The biggest problem I have with the way that so many Christian religions casually throw around the statement, "Mormons aren't Christians" is that they are intentionally misleading and deceiving people.

By just throwing that statement out there, they are leaving the uneducated listener to draw their own conclusions. It also amounts to childish name-calling. They throw out words like "Cult" and "Heretics" and say that Mormons are going to hell for their false beliefs. Christian religions seem to be able to coexist in spite of a lot of differences of opinion -- but they exempt the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from such tollerance. In the majority of cases, Christians stop acting like Christians when it involves the Mormons. Why? Why do these supposedly good and decent people go out of their way to demonize the LDS faith?

1. Shame on those who intentionally lie, mislead, or deceive.

2. For most evangelicals "cult" is equivalent to "heretic." The words indicate serious false teaching. From the perspective of Trinitarians, LDS theology is seriously flawed. And, both Old and New Testament teaching did not have tolerance for teachings that were so wrong they rose to the level of serious heresy.

3. The problem with the word "cult," is that many non-evangelical Christians, and most non-Christians assume it has to do with Jim Jones-type personality cults, brainwashing, etc. So, the word has become muddied, and has probably outlived its usefulness.

4. It's certainly true that nastiness is unChristian, and that some who oppose your church have, at best become, "so right they are wrong."

Bottom-line: These conversations are so much more fruitful when doctrines and teachings are discussed, rather than personalities. However, the OP is so relevent. What is a true Christian. Are there some core essential truths that must be apprehended? Might it be that we will not solve these questions universally on this forum, and yet that I must examine my own heart and spirit...and allow God to do so within my own heart?

These forums and discussions are useful, not so much to see who wins the debate, but in that they allow the person who is willing to be reflective to evaluate their own walk with God, regardless of church. And, indeed, some will end up converting INTO or OUT OF their current community of faith.

Edited January 26, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[Faded]

First of all PC, I appreciate the very Christian way you approach the discussion. It definitely gives me hope that other Christian faiths might be taught to be more courteous and respectful of the beliefs of others. You are a good example of a Christian treating others in a Christian manner.

It is indeed debated whether Constantine's conversion was genuine. However, even if not, yes God can use anyone to bring about his will. He hardened Pharoah's heart, He spoke to a prophet of his using a donkey, He commanded Peter to eat nonkosher meats (thus confirming his mission Cornelius' household). So, yes, God could use a hypocritical king to convene a Council to clarify orthodoxy vs. heresy.

Yes God has used the wicked and the heathen to accomplish his will, but the problem I see is this: Trinitarian Christians are willing to imply that God's will was revealed through proceedings that are questionable at best. Political agenas, pagan influences, Greek philosophical ideas about God, and the need for the result to be "politically correct" for that day and age. All of these issues tainted those proceedings.

For something this important, it seems to me that God ought to have gone about it in a manner that leaves no room for doubt. The Council of Nicea leaves a TON of room for doubt. And yet, Trinitarians (whether knowingly or in ignorance) place the result of the Council of Nicea above the level of scripture -- Scripture can be interpreted by the Spirit in different ways by different people, but the acceptance of the Council of Nicea must be absolute and can never be questioned. I fail to see anything about the Coucil of Nicea that makes it deserving of such total, absolute and unquestioning devotion.

Granted, just because the proceedings of the Council of Nicea were tainted to the extreme (IMHO), it does not mean that the conclusions they came to were wrong.

Latter Day Saints do not reject the traditional Trinitarian view out of spite for the Nicean Council. We believe that God has revealed himself and set the record straight on the matter. So it comes down to whether you accept Joseph Smith as a prophet or not. The same measuring stick applies in this case: Either he was or he wasn't. But if Joseph Smith did see God, then this would be all the things that the Nicene Council wasn't -- a revelation coming directly from God himself.

IMHO, LDS analysis of the Council at Nicea must, as a matter of doctrine, be negative. I do not doubt that serious scholarly and academic effort has gone into these bad reports. However, your teachings do not allow for the Council to have been ordained of God. In fairness, neither do Catholic and Trinitarian churches have the ability to be objective about it. In the end, the Council is much like accounts of Joseph Smith's visions. Either they/he heard from God, or not.

Well said. Blind acceptance of tradition on either side of the question is wrong. The constant barrage of anti-Mormon rhetoric means that it is virtually impossible for a "Mission-Field Mormon" to not have to question their beliefs about the nature of God. I know that's true in my case. I've taken this up with the Lord and the Spirit has always powerfull and absolutely reaffirmed my faith and acceptance of the LDS doctrines and beliefs. The Spirit has confirmed to me that the LDS understanding of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is the correct one.

I should probably note that the research on Constantine and the Council of Nicea is my own personal and independent research. Now I DON'T say this to boast or brag. I want to make it clear that I did not get all of this information and opinion spoon-fed to me by anyone else. I did a semester-long history research project and I felt that Constantine would make an excellent focus for in-depth study. I went in not knowing what to expect. I made sure to choose sources that were not agenda driven -- so no LDS sources and no Catholic apologetic sources, etc. Just straight facts insofar as we have them. I came away with a lot of mixed feelings. His role in Christian history cannot be understated because he legalized Christianity. He was an extremely charismatic leader too. But he was not a good man by Christian standards. Not by a long shot. He was not even a Christian until 1 year before his death, and as you already alluded to, there is good reason to conclude that he was completely hypocritical in his conversion. He finished life buried first as a Christian, and they reburied a second time as a God and Roman Emperor. One can only assume that he was trying to cover all of his bases for the afterlife.

I think the main point I would lead to is this: The Original Poster has laid it out in plain English. In their opinion, only people who have a correct understanding of the nature of God have any right calling themselves Christians. Frankly, that amounts to picking a fight and here's why. It points directly to the conclusion that either all LDS are heretics or all Trinitarian Christians are heretics. I would cite personal experience to say that their entire approach to the matter is flawed. I have seen God and Christ work in the lives of both groups. I have felt the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ cleanse my sins from me. I take other Christians at their word that they have experienced the same thing. Apparently, God is a lot more tolerant than a lot of people professing to believe in him.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Faded

[Palerider]

Hey Prisonchap.....let me ask this....this might be a stupid question and I might even know the answer myself....someone who is member of the mainstream christian churches, but do not attend for whatever reason...are they still considered christian and or looked upon as such in the eyes of the church and church members??? not sure if that makes since,.....and how important is church attendance in your church???........I have a reason why I am asking...

Edited January 27, 2009 by Palerider

[jadams_4040]

Spin-off thread from my introductory post (first of potentially several). The original was here, see post # 31: http://www.lds.net/forums/introduce-yourself/17029-dont-hate-me-lds-turned-christian-protestant.html

In it, a poster defined a Christian as, “Persons who believe in Jesus and accept him as their personal savior.” While there’s certainly nothing wrong with such language—I don’t think the definition goes far enough. A little Church history to show why I think this—

In the 4th Century, a contention arose in Christianity. Certain people began to contend that Jesus was the Son of God and therefore like any son—he must have had a beginning. They insisted Jesus was a created being and therefore was not eternally God. This is referred to as the “Arian Controversy” (you can look it up on Wikipedia, if you’d like to know more).

From this example of heresy in the early Church—you can see that a person may say that he/she believes Jesus is the Son of God, and yet does not believe Jesus is the eternal God, as Christians do. Such persons use Biblical language—but they aren’t true Christians, because they don’t recognize Jesus for who He really is (as revealed by God in Scripture). I’ll offer what I think is a better definition, one that precludes the confusion introduced by the Arians: A Christian is someone who worships Jesus as the eternal God.

Please critique my definition. If you think you have a better one, submit it for my critique and that of other posters.

--Erik

Ya know this debate has been going on for centuries; but in the final run; How does it decry whom is christian and whom is not? Does it make one iota differance wheather God is the son or vice versa? Christ And his father are excatly one in purpose; everyone agrees with that; so how can yu claim someone is not christian because they "know" Christ is the actuall son of God? How does our knowledge make anything differant than what yu beleive to be knowledge? If they are the same is there anything that would be differant than if they are separate, as to pertaining to salvation,righteousness, works; love; worship,glory to him; keeping the sabbath day holy; inspiration; spiritual guidance,; prayer; healing; kindness,; charity; ? is anything at all differant depending on wheather he is one or two beings? We all worship,honor,obey,and love God and Jesus thru the holy spirits guidance. So where is the problem other than putting forth effort simply to disavow others knowledge?

"HE" says in the holy bible we are not to profane or belittle others faith; we are to preach his word; not argue wheather others understanding is correct or not.:)

[Traveler]

Spin-off thread from my introductory post (first of potentially several). The original was here, see post # 31: http://www.lds.net/forums/introduce-yourself/17029-dont-hate-me-lds-turned-christian-protestant.html

In it, a poster defined a Christian as, “Persons who believe in Jesus and accept him as their personal savior.” While there’s certainly nothing wrong with such language—I don’t think the definition goes far enough. A little Church history to show why I think this—

In the 4th Century, a contention arose in Christianity. Certain people began to contend that Jesus was the Son of God and therefore like any son—he must have had a beginning. They insisted Jesus was a created being and therefore was not eternally God. This is referred to as the “Arian Controversy” (you can look it up on Wikipedia, if you’d like to know more).

From this example of heresy in the early Church—you can see that a person may say that he/she believes Jesus is the Son of God, and yet does not believe Jesus is the eternal God, as Christians do. Such persons use Biblical language—but they aren’t true Christians, because they don’t recognize Jesus for who He really is (as revealed by God in Scripture). I’ll offer what I think is a better definition, one that precludes the confusion introduced by the Arians: A Christian is someone who worships Jesus as the eternal God.

Please critique my definition. If you think you have a better one, submit it for my critique and that of other posters.

--Erik

We do not define mathematicians as someone that “believes” in math. A Mathematician is someone disciplined in mathematics and has mastered the art of applying the principles of math.

We do not define a scientist as someone that believes in Science. A Scientist is someone disciplined in the constructs of science and has mastered the principles of applying the scientific method.

We do not define a mechanic as someone that believes mechanical things can or ought to be fixed. A mechanic is someone that is able to apply mechanical principles they have learned and actually fix mechanical things.

We can go on concerning doctors, professors, plumbers, electricians and a bevy of other descriptions of someone that has mastered various disciplines. To define a Christian based on what they believe is both false and a misrepresentation of the covenant followers of the Master Jesus Christ that were anciently known as Saints.

Jesus Christ, the master craftsman of divine things, called his true followers, disciples. The use of the term disciples implies discipline. A Christian is at least an apprentice, actively engaged in the process of learning and applying the discipline defined by the Master Jesus Christ. Those that call themselves Christians without being proficient in the craft taught by Christ are imposters.

The Traveler

[Maxel]

We do not define mathematicians as someone that “believes” in math. A Mathematician is someone disciplined in mathematics and has mastered the art of applying the principles of math.

We do not define a scientist as someone that believes in Science. A Scientist is someone disciplined in the constructs of science and has mastered the principles of applying the scientific method.

We do not define a mechanic as someone that believes mechanical things can or ought to be fixed. A mechanic is someone that is able to apply mechanical principles they have learned and actually fix mechanical things.

We can go on concerning doctors, professors, plumbers, electricians and a bevy of other descriptions of someone that has mastered various disciplines. To define a Christian based on what they believe is both false and a misrepresentation of the covenant followers of the Master Jesus Christ that were anciently known as Saints.

Jesus Christ, the master craftsman of divine things, called his true followers, disciples. The use of the term disciples implies discipline. A Christian is at least an apprentice, actively engaged in the process of learning and applying the discipline defined by the Master Jesus Christ. Those that call themselves Christians without being proficient in the craft taught by Christ are imposters.

The Traveler

My new goal is to attain, for myself, the wisdom and insight that you continually express in a wide variety of subjects, Traveler. Thank you for your wonderful insight.

[bytor2112]

Those that call themselves Christians without being proficient in the craft taught by Christ are imposters.

:) By their fruits, ye will know them...........:):):)

[prisonchaplain]

Hey Prisonchap.....let me ask this....this might be a stupid question and I might even know the answer myself....someone who is member of the mainstream christian churches, but do not attend for whatever reason...are they still considered christian and or looked upon as such in the eyes of the church and church members??? not sure if that makes since,.....and how important is church attendance in your church???........I have a reason why I am asking...

Our hearts ache over non-attending folk. We wonder if they have fallen away. We sometimes call on them. Scriptures says we cannot say we love God if we do not love one another. So, yes, it's very worrisome. I think that rather than consider them damned to hell, we would look upon them as prodigal, as "lost sheep," or, as the Baptists like to say, "backslidden." On the other hand, we do know there is a danger that faith can be lost all together. Hope this helps.

[prisonchaplain]

Pregunta: At least a portion of Christian discipline would be sound study of his revealed written word, no? If so, the mature Christian should indeed be moving towards greater cognitive truth. In other words, they ought to grab ahold of the truths about God and discard the errors. All that to say grappling with what God's nature is does rank up there with good behavior and deeds. It's not enough that I leave the toilet seat down for my wife. I also need to know that she prefers chocolate kisses and plain milk chocolate to the type of sweets that blend chocolate with nuts and caramel and nugget.

[Faded]

I think that the crux of the matter from the LDS perspective is this: We feel in our hearts and souls that we have the correct ideology and understanding on the nature of God (insofar as anyone can understand the infinite of course.) A correct understanding of God and our relationship to Him is certainly a very important thing to us. But we do not seek to belittle other faiths over their incorrect views regarding the nature of God. In this, the majority of Latter Day Saints are choosing to be charitable rather than vindictive.

Then we have most of the rest of Christianity. They believe in the Trinitarian doctrine. I would venture to say that the vast majority of their members do not know why they believe in this doctrine (many don't even know that they believe it -- but theoretically they do -- by virtue of belonging to a religion that requires it.) But their religious experts definitely believe in the Trinitarian doctrine and most of those experts generally understand that it comes down to the Council of Nicea. They believe that they have the correct understanding of the nature of God. The majority of them choose to be vindictive about it rather than charitable. Thus, they actively seek to attack any faith that fails to accept their view of God.

The debate comes down to the LDS faith refusing to say, "I know you are but what am I?"

Edited January 27, 2009 by Faded